> Cooperating means compromising to maximise total utility.
I don't think this is a useful definition of cooperation, because "total utility" is not measurable, and might not even be well-defined.
I would define cooperation as people working together towards a common goal.
> It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people
It's rare for multiple people to want all of the same things, yes. This is why collective action should be limited.
But it's quite common for multiple people to have some common goal, in which case they can cooperate to achieve that goal, without having to share all of their other goals.
Your definition of cooperation appears to be all or nothing: either everybody agrees on everything, or people have to compromise. But if people don't agree on a particular goal, they can just choose not to pursue it together. They can go off and pursue their own goals separately. Nothing requires everybody to agree on a common set of goals and only pursue those.
> the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups
No, the alternative to government oppression is voluntary choice. You can't be oppressed by individuals or corporations or groups that don't have power. And who gives them that power? Governments. Individuals or corporations and groups get to oppress others because they have bought the privilege of doing so from the government--which was supposed to protect people from oppression.
> you don't get a vote
My vote doesn't make any difference anyway; neither major political party in my country (the US) is willing to touch any policy proposals that I would advocate. The best I can do with my vote is to choose the candidates that I think will do the least damage. But I would be glad to trade the loss of that dubious privilege for a much smaller government that didn't try to meddle in so many things.
> I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings
Governments do do good things. But that doesn't mean all good things get done by governments, or that governments doing them are the best way to do even those good things that governments do.
I don't think this is a useful definition of cooperation, because "total utility" is not measurable, and might not even be well-defined.
I would define cooperation as people working together towards a common goal.
> It's rare enough that two people want the exact same thing, even less a group of people
It's rare for multiple people to want all of the same things, yes. This is why collective action should be limited.
But it's quite common for multiple people to have some common goal, in which case they can cooperate to achieve that goal, without having to share all of their other goals.
Your definition of cooperation appears to be all or nothing: either everybody agrees on everything, or people have to compromise. But if people don't agree on a particular goal, they can just choose not to pursue it together. They can go off and pursue their own goals separately. Nothing requires everybody to agree on a common set of goals and only pursue those.
> the alternative to "government oppression" is oppression by individuals/corporations/groups
No, the alternative to government oppression is voluntary choice. You can't be oppressed by individuals or corporations or groups that don't have power. And who gives them that power? Governments. Individuals or corporations and groups get to oppress others because they have bought the privilege of doing so from the government--which was supposed to protect people from oppression.
> you don't get a vote
My vote doesn't make any difference anyway; neither major political party in my country (the US) is willing to touch any policy proposals that I would advocate. The best I can do with my vote is to choose the candidates that I think will do the least damage. But I would be glad to trade the loss of that dubious privilege for a much smaller government that didn't try to meddle in so many things.
> I think there are a lot more good things than just that aspect that our collective invention of government brings
Governments do do good things. But that doesn't mean all good things get done by governments, or that governments doing them are the best way to do even those good things that governments do.